Talk:Lewis & Clark College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Oregon (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
The current collaborations of the month are The Great Oregon Photo Drive of 2014.
WikiProject Universities (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Universities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Early comments[edit]

I removed parts of the article that were lifted from the mission statement. -- Notheruser 12:27 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure that LC is best known for its school of law. Sometime, I will write more about LC. (I am an LC alum.) I don't think LC Law was the first law school in Oregon. Willamette began its lawschool in 1883. Clipdude 20:21 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hate to be much of a stickler for details, but the college is pretty insistent that the "and" is an ampersand (&) and not the actual word. I work at the school and have been instructed a number of times to make sure that this is so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.141.81 (talkcontribs) 16:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

Two of the many reasons why the Odell page should be merged with the main LC page: (1) "Freshies" is not an Odell-specific term, and (2) the Odell page is filled with spelling and grammatical errors that are not caught because it is such a marginal page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstigler (talkcontribs) 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

.... a few more reasons: Odell is small, and not justified in having its own page compared to the other halls on campus. Odell is part of Lewis and Clark. Many of the issues the Odell page mentions (co-ed bathrooms, heating, freshies, etc) are not exclusive to odell. Odell has no identity separate from Lewis & Clark. Also, the page is clearly biased toward those living in Odell; much of the information on the page is untrue and favors odell (ie, it is a favored location for returning students). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.175.43.111 (talkcontribs) 23:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Notable People[edit]

What exactly is the criteria for being listed as a notable professor at LC? There's no doubt that everyone listed is excellent, but should a term such as "notable" be reserved only for those who are widely recognized outside the LC community? (That is not really directed at those listed now, but for possible future entries)

Along those lines, it seems to me that new pages should be made for the notable person when they are added, so that (if nothing else) others may understand why they are so "notable".

What do others think?

If they're not notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, in most cases I don't think they should be listed. There are a couple exceptions though, since the deletionists are running rampant lately. --Liface 02:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(Anon here).

There seems to be professor-crush creep on the notable list. I axed a few. Reflect on the wikipedia notability page for academics before restoring or adding new ones, please. We all like L&C, but at the rate people are going pretty soon you'll be giving L&C an award for most humble school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)

Merge Proposal[edit]

The Lewis & Clark College Co-op article should be a section on this article, as opposed to a separate article. Otebig (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Bicycling at LCC[edit]

I removed this paragraph:

Portland is widely regarded as North America's best city for commuting by bicycle,<ref>{{cite web | first = Chris | last = Korbey | title = Transparency: Cycling to Work | publisher = Good Magazine | date = October 13, 2009 | url = http://www.good.is/post/transparency-biking-to-work | accessdate = 2009-12-11 }}</ref> and some Lewis & Clark students and faculty commute by bicycle. The college's administration supports commuting by bicycle or other means of sustainable transportation, and students who commute by bike or ride for fun are supported by a student run bicycle co-op that provides tools, spare parts, and informal tutorials on bicycle repair.<ref>{{cite web | title = About Lewis & Clark: Transportation | publisher = Lewis & Clark Website | url = http://www.lclark.edu/about/sustainability/topics/transportation | accessdate = 2009-12-11 }}</ref> Cycling is also available as a for-credit physical education course.

The connection between Portland bicycling to LCC bicycling seems tenuous- it doesn't really say anything about the school, let alone about the number of students commuting by bicycle. I've added it here so it can be returned if decent refs are found to support it. Otherwise, it seems a bit of puffery about the school. tedder (talk) 18:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I had already gutted some of the paragraph and other items (most recently added) for the same reasons. I think someone from the school's marketing department has taken on the article, as they keep saying the College. Maybe time for some COI tags and other friendly reminders. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It could just be enthusiasm for the school. It doesn't look terrible now that we've refactored, so I'm not really enthusiastic about a big COI tag on the article. tedder (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Nice cleanup, guys. It was on my short round tuit after the recent activity. —EncMstr (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth I made some of the contributions that were deleted. I'm an LC alum and I've never worked for the marketing department. I sincerely apologize if some of my contributions were not encyclopedic/too enthusiastic. I decided to work on the article because I currently work in rural Malawi and I get pretty bored; not because I aim to lionize LC. I'll try not to sound so favorable in future contributions.

(Isaac.holeman (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC))


Community Character and Traditions[edit]

I'd like to add notes about the character and traditions of LC. I believe such information, conveyed appropriately, is encyclopedic and consistent with more thorough Wikipedia articles for other universities (see Reed College or Stanford University for examples).

Some of my recent contributions have been rapid fire deleted in whole, so to proactively avoid an edit war, I'm adding proposed contributions for this section to the talk page first, and I request feedback and further edits for at least a day or two before I move content to the main page. Please edit to improve new content rather than wholly disregarding information about important student organizations and activities. - (Isaac.holeman (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's the question- how does a section on a cappella groups contribute to the article? Wikipedia isn't a brochure for the school, and there's nothing notable about the hobbies of students, especially since it hasn't been recognized with a notable national award or coverage in a reliable source. If, for instance, the New York Times wrote an article about the a cappella meme at LCC, it might be worth mentioning. As is, what does Wikipedia gain by having flowery prose about this?
Finally, arguing that other pages have sections is a shaky argument- see WP:OSE. tedder (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Valid point about WP:OSE, and I would like to emphasize that I'm not defending any specific language I've put forward thus far (previous language may have sucked due to boosterism, I apologize). I do argue, however, that information about student organizations and traditions is relevant to Lewis & Clark as it is portrayed on Wikipedia.
"There is nothing notable about the hobbies of students, especially since it hasn't been recognized with a notable national award or coverage in a reliable source." I disagree with this statement. The article on Academic Boosterism states that "Motivated editors should direct their energies towards describing all the various aspects of an institution to a broader audience rather than emphasizing its quality" (emphasis mine). A wikipedia article on a college is only useful if it covers enough topics to help readers understand how that particular college compares and contrasts with other similar colleges. Student's extra curricular activities, hobbies, and cultural traits are extremely relevant to explaining the unique characteristics of a college - how else are readers to differentiate the hundreds of small liberal arts colleges that have the same small classes, large endowments, and crappy sports teams?
A specific student body's hobby (a sports team or a vocal group) probably only meets Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for creation of a new stand-alone article if it has, as you suggest, received a notable national award. However, these notability requirements apply to creation/deletion of stand-alone articles, they do not apply independently to each minor subsection within a larger article. The Notability guidelines state that "Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article."
LC's a cappella groups are relevant to anyone who is interested in Lewis & Clark because they involve a very large number of students. The existence of this activity is verified by the current article on the front page of the LC website, and as well the vocal group has made their own website and posted recordings of their music online. Such non-independent sources are not sufficient to justify creation of a new stand-alone article, but publication by a non-independent source, speaking about itself, is sufficient to justify a small subsection within a larger article.
These same arguments apply to other student organizations and traditions, such as the student co-op, which was apparently merged with this article only to be deleted entirely at a later date. - (Isaac.holeman (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
I agree that most of the stuff added was boosterish crap, and I removed much of it, and tagged other items as needing citations from third-party reliable sources, not the school. I also agree that there is a place in the article for some of these activities, as notability only applies to if we have a stand-alone article. But, and this is a big but, that still doesn't mean we cover everything and cover it in-depth. Besides the notability guidelines we have approximately 3000 other guidelines and policies. One of which is of particular note here is the neutral point of view. To quote some key points: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Or in other words, out of all the coverage of L&C, how much of it is on a cappella groups or the bike club versus say a certain former president and his financial dealings? Or on the plans to expand the campus, or even on the swine flu and a student death as a result? And this is not just a pure number of sources, but we should also take into account the reach of the sources. An article in Willamette Week reaches a much bigger audience than the school's newspaper.
So where does that leave us. Mention the groups, but in proportion and in context. For an example, see Dartmouth College, which is an FA class article (the best Wikipedia has to offer) and a small liberal arts school (I'll add a re-write below for that specific portion). Aboutmovies (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The Dartmouth article is great. I think it's worth noting that if you skim through the cited sources for that article, you will see that a majority are not independent sources - they come from one of the school newspapers or the college website or newsletters.
All information portrayed in proportion and context is a great aspiration. But we can't possibly be expected to withhold relevant details about any one aspect of an article until every other aspect of the topic is described in appropriate proportion. If you think the article needs to cover a past president's poor choice more than it needs to cover a cappella groups, than please consider adding a section about the president in appropriate proportion before you excoriate existing contributions. - (Isaac.holeman (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC))
Yes, you can use some L&C sources for some things, that's why I only tagged a few items as needing outside sourcing. Those things being when we have more of an extraordinary claim involving the school and the outside world. We would not ake a source from L&C saying they are the bestest of the best schools in the whole-wide-world, but we don't have a problem using a L&C source that says they have 14 varsity athletic teams. In general see WP:REDFLAG. And in general, the Dartmouth article may no longer be in accordance with all the policies as it was promoted to FA more than 2 years ago, and standards have gotten stricter and the article has evolved since then with roughly 700 edits since promotion. My point with mentioning it, is the way the student activities is more of the way we strive for on Wikipedia. It has grown a bit since passing FA, but it is still only a small percentage of the overall article, and more importantly it does not go into great depth on all the groups. Broad strokes, not minutiae.
Which gets us to your point about withholding. I'm not saying keep this limited until the article expands, it is that it needs to be limited because i:n the grand scheme of coverage, this is a small flash in the pan. Other items warrant greater coverage, period. Not they need it now or later, or the signing folks need more now and less later. It is this small set of incidents receive little coverage outside of the school and do not have the staying power of other things in the long history of the school, and thus they require a small amount of coverage in the article. Period. Not once this article expands, or not until other items are covered, but period. Now, if the groups become world-renowned and are featured in the New York Times, then we could expand the coverage, but that has nothing to do with this article. The mentioning of other items, and the former president item is covered in the notable people section, was to demonstrate other more newsworthy/notable/worth mentioning on Wikipedia items out there that would garner greater coverage within the article due to their more newsworthy/notable/worth mentioning aspects. Not that they need to be covered first, but because they are what are more covered in reliable sources, per WP:UNDUE we need to cover those in greater detail than something like these groups or say teh study habits of freshmen who live on campus and are liberal arts majors who are metrosexuals and ride only bicycles, and drink only organic water, and etc. of other things that just are not covered much by the media. And, the source for this proposed section I believe is a press release from the school, which if true shows even more how un-noteworthy it is, as one would expect the student run newspaper to cover it if it was really newsworthy. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

(deindenting) It's probably worth mentioning WP:UNIGUIDE as a great guide of what should and shouldn't be included. Especially note the 'student life' recommendation, which says "do not include minor or common activities (...) do not attempt to include an exhaustive list of all student activities." tedder (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

a cappella music[edit]

Student led a cappella groups are a relatively recent development but have quickly become popular among Lewis & Clark undergraduates. In 2005 a group of students formed Momo & the Coop. Since then four additional groups have formed, two albums have been released, and students formed the Acabrella Union to foster further development of the a cappella scene at Lewis & Clark.

Although a cappella group members are not awarded academic credit, they aim to bring an academic component to their work, for example enlisting music composition majors to arrange the a cappella renditions of many of the songs on their most recent album, Joh Eh Ba Dop. Performances range from numerous small events at alumni gatherings or house parties, to the most well attended student performances at Lewis & Clark.

Beginning in 2005, a total of five a cappella groups have formed at the school. These groups have about XXX participants and have produced two albums. (yep, one line should do it) Aboutmovies (talk) 09:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Since 2005, a total of five a cappella groups have formed at the school. Coordinated by the student's Acabrella Union, these groups have about 70 participants and have produced two albums. Performances range from numerous small events at alumni gatherings or house parties, to performances at Lewis & Clark's largest venues. The groups are entirely student led and vocalists do not receive academic credit for their participation.

Athletics[edit]

Lewis & Clark maintains 9 male and 10 female varsity sports teams, and athletic facilities including Pamplin Sports Center and Griswold Stadium. While some athletic events are well attended, there has long been tension between varsity athletes and non-athletes regarding perceived social and cultural differences, as well as the substantial financial support varsity sports teams enjoy.

A large number of smaller club teams such as Ultimate Frisbee, Boffing, and college outdoors enjoy broader participation than varsity athletics. Lewis & Clark students have invented one competitive club sport called Ninja, that combines aspects of Boffing, LARPing, and Capture the flag. During term time, Ninja is played by between 10 and 50 students every Saturday at midnight.

(I was once told not to put sources in talk pages, but I have seven sources for the athletics section. These sources are mainly the school newspaper, blogs, and the LC website because the LC sports teams are not good enough for the NYT to write about them, nonetheless athletics are worth mentioning because they are among the more common and time consuming extra-curriculars for LC students. Please help improve this athletics section before I post it to the main article. Thanks.). - (Isaac.holeman (talk))

Atheltics certainly belong, see Willamette Bearcats for example. And though the NYT might not cover them, The Oregonian does, maybe the Portland Tribune too. The tribune's entire archives are online for free, and if you have a Mult. Co. library card you can search the Oregonian's paid archives that go back to 1987 for free. Otherwise, LC sources are fine if they pass WP:RS and relate primarily to the school, but blogs usually fail RS and are normally not acceptable. A Google News search may also be of use, and maybe Google Books. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Title[edit]

If the school's seal uses "and" why is the title of this article at "&"? Woogee (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that's how it is most commonly written. See http://www.lclark.edu/ and WP:NAMEEncMstr (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that the article can now be found at two URLs, one which includes & in the url and one which includes %26 instead. I suspect this is related to the ampersand problem... http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Short_URL#Ampersand_.28.26.29_problem Has it been resolved now? It seems that both URLs point to the same files, that changes in one will automatically show up in the other, but if this is not the case an explanation would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaac.holeman (talkcontribs) 08:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Source[edit]

First Paragraph[edit]

The first paragraph states two possible founding dates (1867 and 1858). Then it claims LC was one of four colleges in Oregon before it became a state in 1859. The official LC website claims 1867 as the founding year.

And after writing that and reading other college pages- I am wondering if this is the most relevant first paragraph. Perhaps this should move to the history section and something more descriptive about LC's overall nature. There are many good examples on other pages.Filiwickers (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I moved much of that paragraph to the History section and added a few replacement sentences to the intro paragraph. Feedback appreciated. (Isaac.holeman (talk) 18:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC))